Yeah ok… that might still exist. I had thought it was nerfed out of existence already.
In my original post that I’m replying to, I suggested that a 20-day manual asset release would be preferable to “no asset safety” for abandoned POSes since that makes assets inaccessible for an extended period of time but not entirely lost (20 days is a long time in EVE!!!), but if “no asset safety” were to be implemented, I suggested there should be a grandfather clause for existing POSes to be fair to players who are not aware and/or present when the patch is released. This was discussed further in a different thread:
POS don’t have asset safety at all and are something else. Please use the actual terms.
I don’t think we want a grandfather clause for existing structures. Active players can use asset safety manually during the attacks, so it’s fine.
What we need is inactive players getting all their assets put into asset safety automatically. 3 months inactive and asset safety triggers. Then you know it’s going to be fine for long term inactive.
Same thread:
I should elaborate and say that “Cits” is inaccurate since not all Upwell structures are citadels, and as such this is not acceptable since the distinction between them may be tactical important in many cases.
There are players who:
- Are physically unable to log into the game when this patch comes out to move their assets to safety
- Are active but unaware of the patch details - not everyone cares to read the patch details, nor should they be expected to
- Are inactive and unaware, but they cannot be described as negligent since up to now asset safety has been guaranteed. They have the right to assume their assets will continue to be safe, especially if they have to temporarily discontinue playing EVE for whatever reason.
None of these players should be penalized for their ignorance or inability to move assets when the patch is released for assets in existing POSes. In new POSes, they should get an EVEmail notifying them when a POS they have assets at goes abandoned and they asset safety is disabled should it become destroyed.
I should also restate that I’d rather there be a 20-day manual asset release than “no assets”, but were “no assets” to be implemented this is how-and-why I feel grandfather clause should be implemented. It doesn’t have to be 20 days specifically, but it would be consistent with the 20-day automatic release that currently exists, except that the release would not be automatic. 20 days is a long time in EVE, but it isn’t too short either, so I think it’s the perfect length of time to hold assets for an abandoned POS that went boom.
That’s nice. Upwell structures are still not POS. You stating something doesn’t make it fact.
Especially when you quote yourself making a bland assertion as your proof.
Use the term Upwell Structures if you need a precise term.
To address your actual points.
- Players only need to log in once in the months warning we get. Any player unable to do this is inactive. Maybe not 3 months inactive but certainly inactive. They can also contact their Corp to fuel the structure for a bit longer.
- Active but unaware of patch details. Tough luck. It’s advertised enough, warning is given, ignorance should never be used as an excuse for bad gameplay options.
- See 1. Also I’ve addressed a much better way of dealing with inactive players that doesn’t go messing with mechanics in a hidden and confusing way. All you need to do is automatically asset safety inactive players. Either as a once off on patch day or just make it part of the mechanics permanently, that going inactive equals asset safety.
That solves 1 & 3, while 2 shouldn’t need solving, ignorance should be punished. It takes minimal awareness to actually read dev blogs from the launcher.
I’m over 2,000 km from where my address is and not able to go there as borders are closed - All shops cafes etc are doing take away only due to Covid 19
I know nobody out here, my nearest neighbour is roughly 2k’s away and a young family in a caravan. Who like me are allowed to go to the “local” supermarket (2 hour drive) once a week for essentials
After the fires and flooding I’d lost pretty much everything so decided to get away for a while to regroup. Then Covid 19 arrived.
Australia is in lockdown. No nonessential travel without a permit, don’t think saving my inventroy in an online game would be classed as “essential”.
As for just me not wanting to undock - The small alliance I played with for years has gone from 40 to 60 (individual players) online each day to less than 20 during the week. I believe many have switched to one of the mega groups.
I was primarily a miner/industrialist 1st and pvp’r 2nd, when I found I could no longer support my play style this way I just let subs lapse. If I can’t build and sell enough end products each month to support my play style I can’t play.
I’m sure I am not alone but as only a small percentage of players ever use the forums the real outcome from what CCP has done won’t be seen here. It will only become clear if and when CCP decide to release real numbers.
I have friends in the largest group in game still making their few bil a day doing the same activities i supported my play style through - Some have even suggested I join their alliance again, which may be an option (not by choice but to keep playing) if I can get through the pandemic with my accounts intact.
1 Like
What app would allow me to login and send everything to asset safety?
I wasn’t aware there was one.,.
Ah. Didn’t realise Australia had gone into lockdown. Hopefully for less than a month.
Though I am in agreement there needs to be at least a once off sending to asset safety for inactive players exactly to cover this sort of thing.
Did you try escalating the ticket to a senior GM?
So who gets to choose who’s Rorqual gets to make good isk while everyone else makes mediocre isk?
My small alliance has roughly 50 Rorquals, mine being 1 of those. I also have 10 subcap miners compared to a few guys who have 30 to 50.
We have alliance buyback for ore which is good but who decides who gets to make that isk?
All CCP needed to do was change the ease with which Rorquals can be miltiboxed in large numbers by a single player. Late last year we found a guy with over 30 rorquals and two supers in an enormous - We killd 18 Rorqs and both supers before the defense fleet landed - The very next day, the same guy was back in the same spot with his fleet intact.
Multiboxing rorquals is the problem, not how many individual players are on grid
Lockdown of borders is here until at least Spring (August) at which time the federal and state govts will review it.
Travel within states is being reviewed now, they are looking at July to relax current restrictions.
I’m again waiting on a reply from a GM.
That’s up to you to decide. Make lottery or come up with a schedule. You can also mine for the corp instead of your own, which means you share the income between all the miners. After all, they profit from the rorqual boosts a lot. Besides, now that CCP has shrunken the belts considerably, you can and have to use Rorquals in more than one belt, so you can spread out … and make yourselves more vulnerable to attacks if my suggestion were adopted.
Thar hardly matters at all. Barges and exhumers are easy to multibox as well. The difference between thetwo are they do not mine as much, they are not nearly as strong in terms of DPS and tank and they have to make choices on what they want (dps, tank, mining yield, ewar) and they need much more manual input because their ore holds are much smaller than that of the Rorqual. This makes them way more vulnerable to attacks and interference and a pain to multibox with regular hunters in thee area.
These two statements do not go together, you are contradicting yourself here.
Or we could use our brains and know what will happen. “I’m the Veteran, I get the big income, you n00bs have to fly the barges and take the scraps I leave for you”. Will it be worded much more politely than that. Of course it will, but that will be the end result in a very large proportion of corps, it’s stupid to think anything else will happen if you hard cap Rorqs to one per belt.
1 Like
Have I suggested putting in the Reading Comprehension skill? Yes? Well… Much more manual input does not impede ease of multiboxing. Just because you have to empty an ore hold more often or assign drones to a bunny does not mean you can’t multibox them effectively and easily. You really need to stop that foollish and wrong nitpicking.
Well, that is the prerogative of your group. Usually, these people will not end up in a good spot in the groups. And when they need help to save their bot-aspirant mining barge swarms, they don’t get that help. Other groups will act differently. And after a few lost 30B barge swarms, those toxic people might reconsider their acting or stop playing altogether (which is a good outcome as well because that means more potential for actual players to mine instead of alt swarms). Individual toxicity is not an argument against the suggested change.
As for the worded more politely … I am pretty sure you hit the nail right on its head with your wording, at least for some groups. That is exactly what I imagine certain groups to tell to their less well skilled members. 
Uh, yes it does, by definition having to do more is less ease.
I mean, how on earth do you take it to mean anything else. If you have to do twice the actions per account, you can only multibox half the number of accounts.
That is hardly true in EVE. At all. See the above example, which is from the time after ISBoxer input broadcasting was banned. Mining in particular offers lots of parallelization potential even if you increase the manual input requirements.
Yeah… at this point you clearly don’t know what you are talking about when you claim increasing manual input required doesn’t make it harder to multibox.
Obviously it doesn’t make it impossible, but it does decrease the number of accounts you can multibox.
Note how your given example is Macks which are specifically chosen to DECREASE required manual input…
Yes, they decrease it but it’s still higher than that of a Rorqual swarm, and yet this character fielded more than 40 of them. With all due respect but you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Let me give you another example of how easy multiboxing with more manual input than a Rorqual is: Stiletto | Miyamoto Uroki | Killmail | zKillboard - This Stormtrooper character swarm regularly flies around Delve to gib attackers. Drones are assigned, fleet is on regroup and the reps probably run all the time (I have not figured that out yet). Lots of initial manual input, depending on how they do repairing, some manual input during the action and still easy to do if you know what you are doing and have setup your system. Yet, this is very vulnerable to attackers that know what you are doing and focus on your drone ships and not the main anchor while someone drags the drones away from the rest of the attackers. Oh, and we have another hard cap here: You can only assign 50 drones max to the bunny.
1 Like
This is an interesting suggestion and gives more utility to the hacking mechanic. Or maybe Archeology if it’s been empty long enough.
After ten years, I’m bored of killmails and most of what is involved in getting them. Sit around in a big group, and then run away if a bigger group shows up. This adds something to covert operations besides who can hotdrop the biggest cap fleet.
I need clarification: does the abandoned state start with the Forsaken Fortress Update is implemented if the structure has not been fueled for the prior seven days?